Changes

*Infiltration rates on silty clay, clayey silt and sandy silt textured soils had a median value of 3.3 mm/h and a range between 0.3 and 17.8 mm/h.  

*Infiltration rates on silty clay, clayey silt and sandy silt textured soils had a median value of 3.3 mm/h and a range between 0.3 and 17.8 mm/h.  

*Permeable pavements had lower measured rates, in part due to compaction of the subsoils to accommodate traffic loading.

*Permeable pavements had lower measured rates, in part due to compaction of the subsoils to accommodate traffic loading.

*Stormwater runoff volume reductions varied between sites, primarily due to factors other than the native soil infiltration rate. For instance, the infiltration trenches and chambers shown in the Figure xx had similar native soil infiltration rates (3.1 to 5.1 mm/h), but runoff reduction values varying from 16 to 90%, chiefly due to site to site differences in the I:P ratio (reference definition), which ranged from 10:1 to 155:1.   

*Stormwater runoff volume reductions varied between sites, primarily due to factors other than the native soil infiltration rate. For instance, the infiltration trenches and chambers had similar native soil infiltration rates (3.1 to 5.1 mm/h), but runoff reduction values varying from 16 to 90%. This is attributed to differences in the I:P ratio, which ranged from 10:1 to 155:1.   

*The configuration of the outflow was also an important consideration. In systems where the outlet is elevated above the native soil, runoff reduction levels tend to be considerably higher than systems with underdrains located at the native soil interface, even if outflow rates from the non-elevated drains are controlled by orifices or flow control valves.

*The configuration of the outflow was also an important consideration. In systems where the outlet is elevated above the native soil, runoff reduction levels tend to be considerably higher than systems with underdrains located at the native soil interface. See [[Bioretention: Performance]]

The studies, tabulated below, clearly indicate that significant volume reduction through infiltration is feasible on low permeability soils. If geotechnical investigations indicate that volume loss through infiltration is not possible, or would provide more limited benefits than found in these studies, the project should focus on reducing runoff through vegetative evapotranspiration.  See here for a list of options, and their relative potential to reduce runoff through evapotranspiration.       

The studies, tabulated below, clearly indicate that significant volume reduction through infiltration is feasible on low permeability soils. If geotechnical investigations indicate that volume loss through infiltration is not possible, or would provide more limited benefits than found in these studies, the project should focus on reducing runoff through vegetative evapotranspiration.  See here for a list of options, and their relative potential to reduce runoff through evapotranspiration.